If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Hey, by the way while you were distracted by secret recordings and replacement referees, the US suffered its worst airpower loss since the Vietnam war in Afghanistan   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting, Afghanistan, Vietnam, aviation, military uniforms, opinions  
•       •       •

24719 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 03:38:04 PM
We have always been at war Eastasia, or is Eurasia, nevermind nothing to see here.
Modern
Industrial
Coruption
 
2012-09-27 03:39:10 PM

Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.


Sorry, but... THIS!
 
2012-09-27 03:39:24 PM

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Because a terror network based out of there recruited some Saudis and killed three-thousand Americans. Then, when we moved in to take out said terror network, the extremist government there took issue with it and decided they'd rather kill people than let them have any real say in their own government.

It's not that hard to understand, and while I think we could be more cost-effective in what we're doing in that country, the idea that leaving Afghanistan means that the problem will just go away is insane. The Taliban is in the same vein as all of those people who attacked embassies over that film. If you give them a foothold, they'll use it to make everyone in the region miserable, which, in our current global society, means we'll be made miserable.
 
2012-09-27 03:40:51 PM

Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.


DAMN STRAIGHT!
 
2012-09-27 03:41:53 PM
Blowing them up on the ground doesn't count.
 
2012-09-27 03:42:38 PM

fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.


Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.
 
2012-09-27 03:44:52 PM

MAYORBOB: violentsalvation: No I wasn't distracted, I read about this the other 500 times it has been submitted and redlit in the past week.

So that's what you gain in return for $5 a month for TF? You get to read 500 failed submissions for every greenlit one. What a wise investment.


No reacharound? I thought the $5 at least got you reacharound.
 
2012-09-27 03:44:53 PM
Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?


THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...
 
2012-09-27 03:44:59 PM

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


The argument could be made that Libya had one in the 1980s. Same goes for the First Persian Gulf War. Now, the air force wasn't working once the USAF and USN had their way with it, but that's a different story.
 
2012-09-27 03:45:18 PM

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.
 
2012-09-27 03:46:13 PM

fluffy2097: dittybopper: They are Harriers. They regularly crash. It would have happened anyway, just over a slightly longer period of time.

Sadly a bunch of marines died and now they have no fixed wing air support for that base. From a strategic viewpoint, It's a significant loss.


Shouldn't we just be able to ferry over some replacement aircraft for them in a day? Even if we had to strip another Harrier squadron of their planes? Sure, someone is going to be short aircraft until some of the ones at AMARC get unmothballed, but it shouldn't be the guys at the sharp end, it should be the squadrons doing routine training. Surely there isn't only a single Harrier squadron left at this point.
 
2012-09-27 03:46:16 PM

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Its really not that complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths
 
2012-09-27 03:47:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: NuttierThanEver: Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.



[img839.imageshack.us image 300x225]


www.fas.org
/Osprey doesn't poison its pilots. It just stops flying. Kinda hard to glide a brick at dead-stick. Even harder if you're not breathing at the time.
 
2012-09-27 03:47:58 PM

charttn: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Its really not that complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths


Oh, look kids... it's that theory again.

I mean, we only found out about those deposits ten damned years after the start of hostilities, but obviously, that's why the US has stuck it out for so long.
 
2012-09-27 03:48:57 PM

Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.


More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.
 
2012-09-27 03:49:11 PM

dittybopper: Yes, you can, for an act of war. To put it in perspective, more people died in the 9/11 attacks than died in the Pearl Harbor attack.



An act of war? Afghanistan never attacked on 9/11. It was a criminal act, and unless Afghanistan and America have an extradition treaty, you can't demand then invade a country to hand over criminals in it. That's not how diplomacy works


dittybopper: Yep. Act of war. You side with the enemy, you become the enemy. That simple.


How can a group of people create an "act of war"? They are not flying a banner of a country. They committed a criminal act and should have been brought to justice. Overthrowing a government not responsible for the attacks was a huge mistake that sadly your bias still cannot see today
 
2012-09-27 03:49:43 PM

ronaprhys: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.



I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.
 
2012-09-27 03:49:50 PM

Marine1: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Because a terror network based out of there recruited some Saudis and killed three-thousand Americans. Then, when we moved in to take out said terror network, the extremist government there took issue with it and decided they'd rather kill people than let them have any real say in their own government.

It's not that hard to understand, and while I think we could be more cost-effective in what we're doing in that country, the idea that leaving Afghanistan means that the problem will just go away is insane. The Taliban is in the same vein as all of those people who attacked embassies over that film. If you give them a foothold, they'll use it to make everyone in the region miserable, which, in our current global society, means we'll be made miserable.


Or they might just be content to oppress their own people and not try and provoke us to come and kick them out of power again.
 
2012-09-27 03:50:57 PM

ronaprhys: This word. I don't think it means what you think it means.



Of course I know what it means. It means that the world then hates you and refuses to listen to you from then on. You see how many countries are so friendly with America now? Your going against all rules of diplomacy and law mean your allies are few and far between and more countries stand up to you because they see you as a bully.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:16 PM

mark12A: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?

THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...


Riiight, like the way they ignored that whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:25 PM

Marine1: The argument could be made that Libya had one in the 1980s. Same goes for the First Persian Gulf War. Now, the air force wasn't working once the USAF and USN had their way with it, but that's a different story.


Okay, I'll give you Libya and Iraq Part I, but neither of them had anywhere NEAR an actual organized air force. But yes, I'll take out Libya in the 80's and the first day or so of Iraq Part 1.

ronaprhys: If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.


People firing AK-47's and the odd Stinger at attack helicopters isn't exactly "anti-aircraft" capabilities (see Somalia and "Black Hawk Down"). Neither was the "Shock and Awe" of Iraq Part II where people were firing AA from roofs in Baghdad at bombers that were way too high and fast to even consider hitting.

I'm talking actual armed forces with AA capabilities, not the odd lucky shot.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:54 PM

fireclown: ronaprhys: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.


I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.


That's because the USAF has the ability to sneak in to enemy airspace and bomb their assets while they're still on the ground.

I'd also consider the Norks a worthy opponent back during the Korean War. Well, maybe not their run-of-the-mill lackeys, but the veteran Soviet pilots that were sent to train the DPRK pilots and their more advanced students gave American pilots a heck of a fight at times.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:55 PM

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


graphics8.nytimes.com

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.
 
2012-09-27 03:52:55 PM
Anything we can do to prevent people from realizing the facts. Distraction, disablement, imprisonment, assassination... it's all on the table. We just pretend that it isn't.
 
2012-09-27 03:52:56 PM
On a cost basis, it was only a $240 million loss. (8 aircraft @ $30 million each) Compare with a crash of a single F-22 ($150 million) or that B-2 that crashed on takeoff from Guam a few years ago. ($1 billion)

/sucks about the casualties, though.
 
2012-09-27 03:53:41 PM

Marine1: charttn: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Its really not that complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths

Oh, look kids... it's that theory again.

I mean, we only found out about those deposits ten damned years after the start of hostilities, but obviously, that's why the US has stuck it out for so long.


It's not like the US hurts for rare-earths.

We just don't much feel like sending people in to mine for them.
 
2012-09-27 03:53:42 PM

mark12A: THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...



Why would a war that Obama inherited look bad for him when something goes wrong? You think a few military toys getting destroyed is such a huge setback? In what universe?


ronaprhys: If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.


Unless you're talking about shoulder mounted anti aircraft rockets then you're delusional. But you've made it quite clear that you're blindly conservative and pro military so having a debate with you is like talking to the Pope about Islam.
 
2012-09-27 03:54:37 PM

Bigjohn3592: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?


Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?
 
2012-09-27 03:55:02 PM

Medic Zero: mark12A: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?

THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...

Riiight, like the way they ignored that whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing.



And how they painted Gore and an out of touch stiff and Bush as the lovable smart business executive and war hero.
 
2012-09-27 03:55:36 PM

fireclown: The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.


Thank you. And you said it with more clarity and precision than I did, so, uh, thanks again.
 
2012-09-27 03:56:19 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mighty_Joe: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something,

He takes credit for bagging Bin Laden, why shouldn't he take the blame for this?

Did you allow him credit for bin Laden, or were you one of the ones shrieking it was all the SEALs and he did nothing?

If you allowed him the credit, you may assign the blame. Otherwise, STFU.


Who takes the blame for letting the Paki copters take Bin Laden and friends out of the Tora Bora in late 2001?
 
2012-09-27 03:56:33 PM

Medic Zero: Marine1: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Because a terror network based out of there recruited some Saudis and killed three-thousand Americans. Then, when we moved in to take out said terror network, the extremist government there took issue with it and decided they'd rather kill people than let them have any real say in their own government.

It's not that hard to understand, and while I think we could be more cost-effective in what we're doing in that country, the idea that leaving Afghanistan means that the problem will just go away is insane. The Taliban is in the same vein as all of those people who attacked embassies over that film. If you give them a foothold, they'll use it to make everyone in the region miserable, which, in our current global society, means we'll be made miserable.

Or they might just be content to oppress their own people and not try and provoke us to come and kick them out of power again.


See, that's the thing. They don't work that way. They want to spread their influence. That's sort of the point of these hardline religious governments: bring everyone you can underneath your idea of religion. If you can do that to an entire country, continent, or planet, then in their minds, you'd be an infidel not to.
 
2012-09-27 03:57:09 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


Hell, both in Vietnam and Korea a number of those migs were actually flown by Soviet pilots.
 
2012-09-27 03:59:03 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.

More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.


This is pretty much my issue with terrorists in general. Killing civilians who are not allowing themselves to be used as a meat shield for millitary targets is wrong in pretty much all cases. Hit a military target, obviously I am not happy about it if its my country or ally that got hit, but at least the military target is actively engaged in the fight and not just trying to make a living.
 
2012-09-27 03:59:09 PM
I must have missed the the Vietnam War in Afghanistan, were they using Apple Maps for that one?
 
2012-09-27 04:00:20 PM

Marine1: I'd also consider the Norks a worthy opponent back during the Korean War. Well, maybe not their run-of-the-mill lackeys, but the veteran Soviet pilots that were sent to train the DPRK pilots and their more advanced students gave American pilots a heck of a fight at times.


AngryJailhouseFistfark: The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


But nothing compared to the power and sheer numbers of US planes and number of sorties.

And I think the USSR was doing mostly what the US did in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. Throwing a wrench in their Cold War enemy's invasion plans while being careful not to overcommit and break the bank. Or cause an international incident and kickstart WWIII.
 
2012-09-27 04:02:06 PM

fireclown:

I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.


The Navy formed the Top Gun school in 1969, because the North Vietnamese Air Force was putting up a surprisingly good showing against U.S. aviators, who had become over-reliant on guided missiles.
 
2012-09-27 04:03:37 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Hell, both in Vietnam and Korea a number of those migs were actually flown by Soviet pilots.


A small number. The Soviets didn't want to get dragged into a bigger war and they were trying to slow down the USA more than actually help their so-called "allies". And again, we're talking about the 1950's and early '60's.
 
2012-09-27 04:03:45 PM

vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.


I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.
 
2012-09-27 04:05:31 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.


Since the modmins are not gonna post this....

Link

I'll just leave this here.


Mittens in 1968...


i.dailymail.co.uk

Edited for truthiness...

i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-27 04:06:15 PM

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


0 AAA capabilities?

North Vietnam and Iraq had some of the finest Integrated Air Defense Networks in the world. Even at the end of the first Gulf War the only thing flying over Baghdad was F-117s at night.

An actual working air force? Wow, way to sell short those North Vietnamese pilots who were doing pretty damn well against the US in their MiG-21s and -17s.
 
2012-09-27 04:06:59 PM

Aikidogamer: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

DAMN STRAIGHT!


Second!
 
2012-09-27 04:07:09 PM

NuttierThanEver: I said Planes, not some bastard cross bred monster


Point taken.

Well played sir.
 
2012-09-27 04:07:38 PM

Mikey1969: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.

I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.


You should care how "old" the aircraft are.

Airframes don't last forever.
 
2012-09-27 04:10:52 PM

Spade: An actual working air force? Wow, way to sell short those North Vietnamese pilots who were doing pretty damn well against the US in their MiG-21s and -17s.


Um, not really.

From Wiki:

All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

0.4 losses per 1000 sorties. So that's 1 plane shot down (or accidentally crashed) for every, uh, 2200 sorties.
 
2012-09-27 04:12:16 PM

Sgt Otter: fireclown:

I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.

The Navy formed the Top Gun school in 1969, because the North Vietnamese Air Force was putting up a surprisingly good showing against U.S. aviators, who had become over-reliant on guided missiles.


This gives me a hard-on
 
2012-09-27 04:13:18 PM

Aikidogamer: Satanic_Hamster: Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.

More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.

This is pretty much my issue with terrorists in general. Killing civilians who are not allowing themselves to be used as a meat shield for millitary targets is wrong in pretty much all cases. Hit a military target, obviously I am not happy about it if its my country or ally that got hit, but at least the military target is actively engaged in the fight and not just trying to make a living.


As soon as we started the "Global War on Terror" and all acts of terrorism became de facto acts of war, this kind of thinking went out the window.

Either terrorists are criminals, performing criminal acts against civilians--and should be treated as such; or they are soldiers, performing acts of war against a hostile nation. You can't have it be both that they are criminals murdering civilians AND soldiers engaged in a military action. And yet that's what policy makers are trying to have. We're fighting a war against criminals, ergo, anything the criminal does is a war action. Therefore, blowing up Harrier jets on a runway is JUST AS MUCH an act of war as blowing up a marketplace full of innocent shoppers, at least following this line of thought. (Or to flip it, blowing up military jets is just as much an act of terrorism as blowing up the marketplace)

One reason terrorism was better fought in the 1970's is that there was a sharp distinction between what the terrorists did and what an army did. The IRA was never given the dignity of being called "a terrorist army"--they were first and foremost always criminals. Even acts by the PLO were never perceived to be "acts of war"--they were always crimes, albeit crimes of a horrific scale and scope. (That the army had to deal with both organizations merely speaks to the fact that cops were outgunned by them)

Only since 9/11, when America decided that a small, shadowy terrorist group had commited an "act of war" against us, did these lines become blurred. Now the idea that a terrorist group commits crimes and a government commits acts of war is hopelessly muddled. We need to start thinking that way again, but I really doubt it will happen.
 
2012-09-27 04:14:00 PM
Nothing takes the mind off the war like watching grown men chase a ball around.
 
2012-09-27 04:15:13 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 361x450]

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


As I recall, it was Olds who famously said: "We're going to fly up (to North Vietnam) through flak to drop some iron bombs on trucks, and probably be hassled by MiGs on the way out. But don't worry, I have it on good authority that none of this is happening."

/had the biggest hands of anyone I've met
 
2012-09-27 04:16:45 PM

Sgt Otter: Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?


Worked for Grant in 1864.

Sometimes realizing you have an overwhelming resource advantage puts you up on the other guys.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report